Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:55:35 07/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2002 at 14:30:21, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On July 19, 2002 at 14:16:34, Matthew Hull wrote:
>
>>On July 19, 2002 at 14:03:24, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>On July 19, 2002 at 13:39:32, Matthew Hull wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 09:54:08, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>world championship.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suggest that the rules can say that the games are
>>>>>played under winboard(pondering off,animation off).
>>>>>
>>>>>Every 2 programs can play 100 or even more games between
>>>>>them so the total number of games of every program can be
>>>>>at least 5000.
>>>>>
>>>>>I believe that we may get significant results
>>>>>by that idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>Uri
>>>>
>>>>I don't suppose we would see many "evergreen" games from such a contest. The
>>>>quality of the chess would be quite low. For that kind of entertainment, an
>>>>elemetary school chess tournament might suffice. Some might say it would be
>>>>more interesting to watch people race their electric belt sanders.
>>>>
>>>>To me, the compelling attraction of computerchess is its potential to some day
>>>>definitively define what Lasker called "the reason of chess", or at least make
>>>>some asymtotic approach to that answer.
>>>>
>>>>Bullit chess is an idea seeminly calculated to suck the very life out of a game
>>>>which is loved for its beauty and complexity.
>>>>
>>>>As much fun as blitz can be personally, it's not real chess in the classic
>>>>intellectual sense. I think computerchess can offer more than what an extreme
>>>>bullit event proposed here can offer.
>>>>
>>>>Just my opinion. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>No, you are right it isn't chess in the classic sense, 1 sec/G they move so fast
>>>you have no idea who is being checkmated or what is going on :)
>>>
>>>But, you will be surprised that something interesting can actually develop in
>>>such games. E.g. things that are found by static eval need no search at all.
>>
>>I suppose this could be a high motive for the contest. But I still think they
>>just want to "race their electric belt sanders". :-)
>>
>>>
>>>Here is a "nice" 1 sec game selfplayed by my engine, I like the opening for
>>>white, it sort of reveals the opening code I have (no book was used) :)
>>>
>>>1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nd7 3. Nf3 Ngf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. Bf4 Qe7 6. Bc4 c6 7. O-O a6 8.
>>>Re1 a5 9. e5 dxe5 10. dxe5 Ng4 11. Qd6 Qd8 12. Qd4 Bc5 13. Qd2 b6 14. Bg5
>>>Qc7 15. Nd4 a4 16. a3 b5 17. b3 bxc4 18. bxa4 h6 19. Bf4 h5 20. h3 f6 21.
>>>exf6 Nde5 22. fxg7 Qxg7 23. hxg4 Nxg4 24. Nxe6 Bxf2+ 25. Qxf2 Qxc3 26. Qd4
>>>Rxa4 27. Be5 Qxc2 28. Bxh8 c3 29. Nc5+ Qe4 30. Qxc3 Nf2 31. Rab1 Bh3 32. g3
>>>Bd7 33. g4 Bxg4 34. Ra1 Nh3+ 35. Kh2 Rc4 36. Qxc4 Qxe1 37. Rxe1+ Kf8 38.
>>>Bc3 Ng5 39. Qf4+ Nf7 40. Qb8+ Bc8 41. Qxc8+ Nd8 42. Qxd8+ Kf7 43. Qe8#
>>>{White mates} 1-0
>>>
>>>-S.
>>
>>Nice. Now at the end of the contest, you can wade through the 5000 odd results
>>to find the gems, eh?
>
>No, I only played three :)
>The first was lost on time after 83 moves, the second did mate but was "not a
>good example" :)
>
>Anyway, I think this clears up a few things about the static eval.
>It shows you what things are found by search and what by evaluation.
>For instance you capture a knight on c6 and how do you recapture, do you use the
>bishop on d7 or do you create a nasty double pawn by recapturing with the
>b-pawn?
>
>If you let it search, it will probably find the right move, but it should get
>the rudimentary ideas correct at the first ply!
>
>I have also begun printing out the static eval after setting up a position, I
>found a horrible bug in my evaluation (causing up to 1.5 pawn miseval!).
>
>It is just another powertool in the toolbox :)
I'll take your word for it. But beyond that, do you think that the proposed
contest has something useful to contribute to computerchess or is it "just for
grins"?
Regards,
>
>-S.
>
>>Regards,
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.